MORE ON UNDERLYING CAUSE OF IMPENDING IRAQ WAR

Check the link. It can't be found.

edgar, can't get to the site.

I fixed it.

Great reference articles in the bottom of this great study. It's indeed all about keeping the dollar on top of the economic hierarchy. As if there should be one...
Can't we all just live together for christ's sake.

I managed to read the article. All its contents seems rather speculative than confirmed by any facts. The author searches for possible reasonsm, and allegedly finds it. He might have searched in another place, and find something else. I do not deny that oil may have significance, but it is one of the reasons for Iraqi campaign, and not mandatory the main one.

would you seriously argue that the attack on iraq is for your SAFETY?

Not only mine. I do not know your nationality, but if you are an American/Canadian/Australian or a European, then for your security as well. I believe it.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Glick_56.wmv

http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id3119/pg1/

This son of a 9/11 victim is a courageous man. I feel inspired to continue his anger.

So Steissd: forget it. We will not be brainwashed by cold war rhetoric shifting scare mongering from the communists to the islamists & Iraq. We've outgrown and outsmarted this trick (Taliban, Baath, Noriega, Pinochet, Shah of Iran... were all US backed), and we are very well aware of the links between intelligence consortiums and the so-called al qaeda terrorists. Everyone with a brain and a pc is aware of the links between cia, isi, and Taliban. Al qaeda isn't very far.

So if you and all the other awol hardwingers are looking for excuses to invade Middle Eastern countries, you should know that this hypocrisy is very whimpish. No conqueror has ever constructed so much artificial lies to achieve his goals. I say to the Bush regime: at least be a man and just conquer; keep some honour in not having to lie continually, nor try to be respected by te world opinion. If you wanna rule, just rule.

Since the 9/11-lie, the US is in the hands of first pedigree lying chickenhawks who couldn't care less for American values.

OK, there's one point I've got to address. I'm Australian, 37 years old, and I can't remember there ever being a terrorist attack in our country (Bali IS in Indonesia). The Hilton Hotel in Sydney was bombed in 1975-I don't know if that was terrorism or a simple criminal/extortion act. I don't believe the truth about that incident has ever come out. But personally I have NEVER considered terrorism a part of my life in this country, and I keep hearing people talk about protecting my security when I've never felt it at risk in the first place. At least I hadn't until John Howard decided to follow George Jnr down the road of lunacy.

Where's the LINK?

Americans are now worrying about the place and date of the next terrorist attack in the US.

I suspect it will be on the East coast again. I doubt that any of these activities will ever happen in either Idaho or Montana. These might be good states to move to , if you're afraid.

Tres,

Port cities are especially vulnerable. They are our major interface with foriegn countries, and container cargo is almost impossible to screen entirely. Attacks at port facilities could cripple trade, and do wide damage to the urban areas surrounding the ports.

There are some awefully good targets on the east coast, but the west coast may be less obvious. Los Angeles/Long Beach harbors handle huge amounts of traffic and L.A. is emblematic of American Culture to much of the world. San Franciso, and Seattle would also be inviting targets.

Significant efforts are being made to protect our ports, but terrorists only have to succeed once to do great damage. I agree that locations in the interior with low population densities and low-priority targets are probably safer than prime targets that are relatively easy to reach.

Mr. Wilso, I sincerely wish Australia to remain a quiet place, free of terror. I am even interested in this personally, since I am in process of application for immigration there. In fact, I wish any country to be a quiet and free of terror place.
But this will be an error to consider that decision of Mr. John Howard to support the USA changed anything in terrorists' attitudes.
Kenya has never been involved in any of the anti-terror campaigns. Despite of this, two major terror attacks occurred on her territory: one against the U.S. Embassy, and another against the hotel owned by Israeli businessman. In both cases number of Kenyan casualties exceeded number of casualties among the citizens of the countries that were targets of attack. Unlike U.S. or Israeli armies, terrorists do not take care to minimize or avoid (if possible) the collateral damage. Lives of Kenyans that were not involved in the "Holy War" on the either side were not taken into consideration.
It is impossible to say that any country is protected from terror attack by definition. But it is possible to protect them by means of fighting terror planners and sponsors without mercy.
That is why, I am convinced that the U.S. military operation is intended to provide both my security and yours.

Was that O'Reilly interview an example of how such things are conducted in the American news - or a wild aberration?

Was O'Reilly disciplined for his grossly unprofessional behaviour?

THIS is the land of free speech?

dlowan: this in certainly not atypical of Mr O'reilly, he is a prime talking head bought and paid for by Rupert Murdoch. (sound familiar?)

Sadly yes - a purveyor of trash to the world.....

Which the world eagerly consumes, nothing daunted . . .